What needs to be changed

Users who are viewing this thread

xGreedo

Recruit
Hello! i will just leave this here.

  1. Smithing is still broken. The player shouldn't be able to make 10-20-30k for each weapon that they craft. With what i understand there is already a tag system implemented in the game that lower the price penalty of crafted weapons (Level 175 Artisan Smith) what i want to focus on is the price penalty on crafted weapons just make it be 80%-90% of the original price of the weapon.(even this will still broken but way better)
  2. Armor value. Basically make it that armor actually matters because right now its not really a big difference if you wear a 30 armor piece or a 55 armor piece.As the lore of the game says if you follow the quest of the game and speak with Vlandian lords they will tell you that their sharpshooters got rekt by imperial cataphracts because the bolts where practically useless against their heavy armor.(this is really not reflected in the game at all.)
  3. Archers are too powerful.They are literally make every other type of unit feel underpowered
  4. Sturgia infantry needs a buff.
  5. Late game. When you reach the late game of the champaign you will be basically do battle after battle, and you are going to feel like it doesn't matter how many battles you win or how many lords you capture the AI will always throw more. In my opinion the problem here is how fast the AI is able to recruit units.
    Lets say that notables in Villages and Cities replenish their recruitable troops every 1 day.What if we make it be 2 days instead? that will slow down the AI and the player and will make the battles feel more impactful.
  6. I feel like noble troops are too easy to find right now, i dont know when did you make that change but i would prefer it if they where harder to actually find.(basically fewer villages will have them) this is actually more serious that you might thing because i legit don't find the need to train any normal troop into cavalry because i can just go and get the noble line troops. It just doesn't feel right.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
1. Yeah, smithing boring and for babies
2. yeah
3. Only low tier ranged is OP IMO, high tier deserves to do good damage. The problem is equally thar inf and cavalry kinda suck in general. I talked about it a lot already, but I have a major concern with TW trying to nerf "OP ranged" without making infantry and Cavalry also not totally suck and die all the time in general.
4. sure
5. I think player control is the best way to go for this, they've already over tinkered with recruits and all related stuff. The player should control the faction and thus be able to imprison all enemies, prolong wars, take all fiefs (by ordering vassals too!), properly maintain said fiefs, hand them out and cleanly and skillfully take entire factions, imprison all lords and force them to turn or remain imprisoned. The easy recruits and such are already a band aid and although I agree it's a problem, I think being able to just capture all the lords outright and be in full control of the player faction is more interesting and would circumvent this.
6. NO! NOT MY HUNKY GUYS! You're not wrong, there can be little reason get normal recruits, FOR SOME TROOPS, some noble lines however are inferior to thier generic counterparts. Who wants bannerknights? Give me sharpshooters all day! I think they already tinkered too much on this and should just leave it alone. I could always get all nobles really fast anyways so it's kinda just tinker tinker stuff to me. There are also drawbacks to some noble units over standard, for instance t3 khuzait raider has 2 stacks of arrows while the noble t3 has only 1 and in fact has only 1 stack until it reaches t6. Because t6 is so expensive, there's a strong argument that actually making standard HA would be better since only the t6 noble is overtly stronger and at t3 and t4 a second stack of arrows is much better.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I think archers are perfect. In fact, I'd like them to be more deadly. Like give them laser range finders.

Armour is about right too.

Smithing is boring tho. Do what you want with it.
 

xGreedo

Recruit
5. I think player control is the best way to go for this, they've already over tinkered with recruits and all related stuff. The player should control the faction and thus be able to imprison all enemies, prolong wars, take all fiefs (by ordering vassals too!), properly maintain said fiefs, hand them out and cleanly and skillfully take entire factions, imprison all lords and force them to turn or remain imprisoned. The easy recruits and such are already a band aid and although I agree it's a problem, I think being able to just capture all the lords outright and be in full control of the player faction is more interesting and would circumvent this.
I want to agree with you but we both know that this is too much work for taleworlds right now they have more important things to focus on.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Hello! i will just leave this here.

  1. Smithing is still broken. The player shouldn't be able to make 10-20-30k for each weapon that they craft. With what i understand there is already a tag system implemented in the game that lower the price penalty of crafted weapons (Level 175 Artisan Smith) what i want to focus on is the price penalty on crafted weapons just make it be 80%-90% of the original price of the weapon.(even this will still broken but way better)
  2. Armor value. Basically make it that armor actually matters because right now its not really a big difference if you wear a 30 armor piece or a 55 armor piece.As the lore of the game says if you follow the quest of the game and speak with Vlandian lords they will tell you that their sharpshooters got rekt by imperial cataphracts because the bolts where practically useless against their heavy armor.(this is really not reflected in the game at all.)
  3. Archers are too powerful.They are literally make every other type of unit feel underpowered
  4. Sturgia infantry needs a buff.
  5. Late game. When you reach the late game of the champaign you will be basically do battle after battle, and you are going to feel like it doesn't matter how many battles you win or how many lords you capture the AI will always throw more. In my opinion the problem here is how fast the AI is able to recruit units.
    Lets say that notables in Villages and Cities replenish their recruitable troops every 1 day.What if we make it be 2 days instead? that will slow down the AI and the player and will make the battles feel more impactful.
  6. I feel like noble troops are too easy to find right now, i dont know when did you make that change but i would prefer it if they where harder to actually find.(basically fewer villages will have them) this is actually more serious that you might thing because i legit don't find the need to train any normal troop into cavalry because i can just go and get the noble line troops. It just doesn't feel right.
I take it the game didn't change at all from june 2020 to now, the same key issues seem to still be way too relevant I see...
 
Agree mostly.

(1) Never use it, probably only interested in creating an uber sword, and uber shield (what happened to the large Pallisade shield? If it's been removed then I need to create it)
(2) yes ? maybe? not sure ? nothing obvious for me.
(3) hmmmm I think they're ok, lots Of WHACKS! when enemy archers open up on my shield-wall. Archers gain power and range as they upgrade., seems reasonable.
(4) maybe ?
(5) YES !! Late game is boring as F. Especially for the Banner quest, I was hoping war against all (depending on relations) non-empire empires and allied with most (depending on relations) empire kingdoms - a HUGE WORLD WAR to finish the game.... but no .
(6) Yes, it;s too easy to upgrade troops to elites, if that's what you meant ?

..
 

xGreedo

Recruit
Agree mostly.
(5) YES !! Late game is boring as F. Especially for the Banner quest, I was hoping war against all (depending on relations) non-empire empires and allied with most (depending on relations) empire kingdoms - a HUGE WORLD WAR to finish the game.... but no .
(6) Yes, it;s too easy to upgrade troops to elites, if that's what you meant ?
Actually if you fail the last part of the quest (when you need to prevent the bar from going up, and you need to capture 3 settlements of your culture to complete it) every different culture faction will declare war on you. (you can still peace them out though)

What i meant is that you can find the noble line troops (Fians,Cataphracts etc) on too many villages right. They don't feel unique at all.
 

five bucks

Squire
3. Only low tier ranged is OP IMO, high tier deserves to do good damage.
Right now most T5 archers can kill through the armor T5 infantry wears in about 3-4 shots.


This means you need about 450 infantry to kill 200 archers/crossbowmen. Sharpshooters and Palatine Guard are also good enough in melee that they will still win!

Should take at least 7 shots (if not more), even for high tier archers, to kill high tier armor.

Otherwise, if high tier ranged infantry and ranged cavalry can slaughter shieldless infantry at a distance, two hander infantry will always be crap, as they are countered by two common unit types.

So ranged weapons definitely need to become weaker against high tier armor. (To avoid overnerfing archers with this change, the amount of shielded units in the game can be reduced, as more pikemen need to be added to troop trees anyway).

However, I agree that T5 ranged is performing against low tier units in poor armor pretty much the way they should.

Headshots are also almost always a kill, and that makes headshot damage related perks pretty useless.
I have a major concern with TW trying to nerf "OP ranged" without making infantry and Cavalry also not totally suck and die all the time in general.
Yep, cavalry need to use lances better and infantry need to use spears better. But apart from that, weak armor against OP ranged weapons is 75% of the reason that melee users suck.
I think archers are perfect. In fact, I'd like them to be more deadly. Like give them laser range finders.

Armour is about right too.
I do sometimes wonder if these are troll posts, as it's obvious how many gameplay problems are caused by the current huge advantage ranged cavalry/infantry units have over melee infantry/cavalry.
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Right now most T5 archers can kill through the armor T5 infantry wears in about 3-4 shots.

That's because armor is useless in this game. The whole damage model is bad. It has been said several times, there was a thread that even had a solution to that that would be easy to implement. But, as usual, crickets.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant at Arms
I do sometimes wonder if these are troll posts, as it's obvious how many gameplay problems are caused by the current huge advantage ranged cavalry/infantry units have over melee infantry/cavalry.

No, I am happy with archers and armour. I've debated it to death in other threads.

I just want to make sure that any casual viewer of the thread knows that this issue isn't an "everyone knows" or "obvious" situation, and that there are differing perspectives.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
No, I am happy with archers and armour. I've debated it to death in other threads.

I just want to make sure that any casual viewer of the thread knows that this issue isn't an "everyone knows" or "obvious" situation, and that there are differing perspectives.
Yep. Yours, and everybody else's on this forum.
 

five bucks

Squire
No, I am happy with archers and armour. I've debated it to death in other threads.

I just want to make sure that any casual viewer of the thread knows that this issue isn't an "everyone knows" or "obvious" situation, and that there are differing perspectives.
Sure, by all means say your piece, I just think it's really hard to take your post seriously and not assume you're trolling when you look at (realism entirely aside) the way weak armor makes gameplay vastly worse, makes battles only last around 3 minutes on average, reduces the depth of tactics to sitting archers on a hill and waiting for them to mow everyone down, makes half the troops in the game very poor options, makes tier progression unsatisfying as supposedly elite units with the best armor money can buy get easily slaughtered by a couple of looters and peasants and recruits, makes high tier gear not worth the huge jump in expense for the marginal protection increase it provides, makes fighting elite enemies too easy as you can very easily oneshot even noble enemies, prevents the player from participating in frontline combat in large battles unless they put player damage on easymode (which makes melee enemies a joke) if they don't want to get fourshot by stray projectiles...

...and say to yourself: "yep, this looks fine".

There are differing perspectives, but yours is only valuable to someone who doesn't care about tactics, doesn't give a flying **** about realism, doesn't want to spend much time in the battles, doesn't want to fight on the frontline, doesn't want to use half the troops in the game viably, and really enjoys shooting-dominated battles where archers rack up 90% of the kills that look nothing like the 1000s period Bannerlord is based on. That's not a valuable perspective to most people.
Yep. Yours, and everybody else's on this forum.
+1
 

Gandamula

Sergeant at Arms
If an arrow doesn't kill the target the first time due to the use of armor, the second and third shot don't kill either, because they would hardly hit the same hole. It is complete nonsense to think that certain targets should fall on the third or fourth shot.
 

Lazregamesh

Sergeant
WB
No, I am happy with archers and armour. I've debated it to death in other threads.

I just want to make sure that any casual viewer of the thread knows that this issue isn't an "everyone knows" or "obvious" situation, and that there are differing perspectives.
I agree, i feel like armor is protective enough. Arrows and bolts pierce thick armor except for high end armor, steel cuirass deflects arrows but shrapnel and hits in the gapes still go through, people who want to be battlefield tanks debate otherwise.
Maybe it needs a little bit of tweaking for really expensive armor to reflect their deflection capabilities but otherwise on realistic difficulty it feels like if i am not acting like an immortal god, i survive and participate quite a lot if i position myself right.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I agree, i feel like armor is protective enough. Arrows and bolts pierce thick armor except for high end armor, steel cuirass deflects arrows but shrapnel and hits in the gapes still go through, people who want to be battlefield tanks debate otherwise.
Maybe it needs a little bit of tweaking for really expensive armor to reflect their deflection capabilities but otherwise on realistic difficulty it feels like if i am not acting like an immortal god, i survive and participate quite a lot if i position myself right.
What high end armor are you talking about? Also, the problem is not the player. The problem is with the troops. High level troops should be powerhouses, not eh meh they'll get shot down by an imperial armed trader. High level ranged units should be able to pierce through high level armor, low level units should not. I do not understand how anyone can disagree with this, it's just basic game balance.
 

Lazregamesh

Sergeant
WB
What high end armor are you talking about? Also, the problem is not the player. The problem is with the troops. High level troops should be powerhouses, not eh meh they'll get shot down by an imperial armed trader. High level ranged units should be able to pierce through high level armor, low level units should not. I do not understand how anyone can disagree with this, it's just basic game balance.
High end armor in real life is what i meant (Arrows vs Armor).
That's why i agreed that high end armor in game should be tweaked to reflect that.
I get shot by different troops, lower tier don't do that much damage unless:
1) you are too close to them and they have the high ground.
2) You are speeding towards them
sharpshooters can almost one hit you though, so there is a difference.
If high end armor in game gets tweaked a bit then the problem you have mentioned would also be solved.
Shield wall formation seems to do wonders vs archer to be honest though
2Handed unites will hide behind the shielded troops if you condense the formation
 
Last edited:

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
High end armor in real life is what i meant (Arrows vs Armor).
That's why i agreed that high end armor in game should be tweaked to reflect that.
I get shot by different troops, lower tier don't do that much damage unless:
1) you are too close to them and they have the high ground.
2) You are speeding towards them
sharpshooters can almost one hit you though, so there is a difference.
If high end armor in game gets tweaked a bit then the problem you have mentioned would also be solved.
Shield wall formation seems to do wonders vs archer to be honest though
2Handed unites will hid behind the shielded troops if you condense the formation
Right, so it sounds like we are saying the same thing in different ways.

The reason why high end armor does not protect in game is because the model used for damage after armor is just bad. Here is the thread I was talking about:


I would also be interested in @Ananda_The_Destroyer's take on the shield wall formation. I was under the impression that shields were also not that effective against ranged, but I haven't played in a while so I could be mistaken on that.
 
Top Bottom